TD Ciaran Cannon hit by SUV, suffers serious injury

TefalBrain

Darc19 wrote: »

And should make it a lot easier to see cyclists.

I used to drive a SUV - you could see cyclists over the roofline of cars in front and prepare for passing them.

As for "hi viz" - a bright summer's evening would not necessitate hi viz for a motorist paying attention.

I'm not a cyclist - too many crazy motorists out there.

And cyclists.

Grassey

You'd hope that as a result of this a renewed focus might be brought to government-minister-dismissive-of-idea-to-upload-video-evidence-of-traffic-crime/

seamus

tdf7187 wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, SUV's are a modern day curse.

You should see the insanity that they're producing in the US

https://www.gmc.com/content/dam/gmc/na/us/english/index/vehicles/2021/crossovers-suvs/yukon-mov/shared-assets/01-images/2021-yukon-mp-rear-21PGYK00132.jpg?imwidth=1200

The people in the picture are accurate to the size of the vehicle. The rear height is 6'4", the bonnet height is 4'3". If you're a fairly average size man, the bonnet is up to your shoulder. If you're a women, only your head will be visible above the front of the car.

When you consider the position that drivers sit in, it's possible that an adult might not be visible in front of this vehicle, never mind a child.

It's absolutely off the wall, and I can only hope that the EU gives focus to vehicle design maximums to avoid these things ever being allowed on the road.

CoBo55

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Hillman Hunter. God be with the days when you could stand on the roof of one at a football match. Try doing than in a modern car!

Del2005

marvin80 wrote: »

Ridiculous how popular they've become especially considering that there more of a danger to vulnerable road users compared to regular saloon cars (that the SUVs have replaced.)

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars#:~:text=At%20speeds%20of%2020%2D39,involving%20cars%20(54%20percent).

They are American SUV's which would require a C1 licence here. The majority of our "SUVs" are based on cars and nothing like an American SUV for other road user protection.

magicbastarder

my main issue with vehicles is unnecessary height.
if i'm a ped, or if i'm cycling, not being able to see over vehicles, at what other vehicles are doing is an obvious drawback.
and a corollary to that, and possibly even more important, if the drivers of those other vehicles cannot see *me*, that's obviously a major issue.

a 'normal' car is usually under or about 5 foot tall. many SUVs (regardless of the 'they're based on standardised car chassis' argument) cannot be seen over by someone of average height.

Hurrache

But not many 'SUVs' here have that issue over unnecessary height. I'm looking out at the carpark now and I'm parked beside a Qashqai and a similar Hyundai. There's not a huge differnece in height, and in the Nissan/Hyundai the seats are up higher given more or less the same view of what's immediately in front of the car, maybe even more so compared to people who sit low and slouchy in other cars.

Plus I know with the Nissan, it's a colleagues, it has that cool 360 camera view and the front one (and I think the side ones) automatically switch on if it detects anything at a low speed.

But as for the pick ups, we had a tradesman in one of those big Ford Ranger Raptors, that's huge. Although he did have it for all his equipment.

Effects

Hurrache wrote: »

But as for the pick ups, we had a tradesman in one of those big Ford Ranger Raptors, that's huge. Although he did have it for all his equipment.

I know a lot of tradesmen that switched from SUVs (Land Cruiser, Pajero etc.) to vans as they are more practical. So I don't buy the theory that a raptor is needed to carry all his equipment.

magicbastarder

the current qashqai has a stated height of 1,635mm.
the average height of an irish woman is 1,650mm. so the average irish woman cannot see over a qashqai.

at a guess, you'd probably need to be at least 100mm taller than the car to see over it. so for that qashqai, 1,735mm tall, or about 5'8" tall.

(and rather coincidentally, i think i'm 172mm tall. maybe tall people don't realise the issue SUVs can create)

Hurrache

Effects wrote: »

I know a lot of tradesmen that switched from SUVs (Land Cruiser, Pajero etc.) to vans as they are more practical. So I don't buy the theory that a raptor is needed to carry all his equipment.

I'm not saying he needed it, just that it was being used. I can imagine though as it was a crew cab it's more practical in terms if you have a family.

In terms of height, I'm coming from the POV of the argument being made that the height means a driver can't see what's immediately Infront of them, not who can or cannot see over them. Sure we'd be arguing for thirsty sports cars in that case.

CoBo55

magicbastarder wrote: »

the current qashqai has a stated height of 1,635mm.
the average height of an irish woman is 1,650mm. so the average irish woman cannot see over a qashqai.

at a guess, you'd probably need to be at least 100mm taller than the car to see over it. so for that qashqai, 1,735mm tall, or about 5'8" tall.

(and rather coincidentally, i think i'm 172mm tall. maybe tall people don't realise the issue SUVs can create)

Ha ha, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The driver is sitting in the car, not standing beside it pushing it along...

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

the current qashqai has a stated height of 1,635mm.
the average height of an irish woman is 1,650mm. so the average irish woman cannot see over a qashqai.

at a guess, you'd probably need to be at least 100mm taller than the car to see over it. so for that qashqai, 1,735mm tall, or about 5'8" tall.

That's the roof height to be fair, not the bonnet height. Though there's a reasonable point that the visibility through the rear window of these higher vehicles may be very inadequate.

(and rather coincidentally, i think i'm 172mm tall. maybe tall people don't realise the issue SUVs can create)

At 172mm sure you'd pass right underneath the front bumper

magicbastarder

CoBo55 wrote: »

Ha ha, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The driver is sitting in the car, not standing beside it pushing it along...

who said anything about the driver? you could try reading my previous post on it. it's only four posts above the one you quoted.

CoBo55

Del2005 wrote: »

They are American SUV's which would require a C1 licence here. The majority of our "SUVs" are based on cars and nothing like an American SUV for other road user protection.

Would American stuff be over 3500kg, not that I'll ever be driving one.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

That's the roof height to be fair, not the bonnet height.

it's not the bonnet i'm worried about.

one context - i used to cycle newtownpark avenue from the N11 to blackrock on my commute. it's fast downhill, and the main danger there is cars pulling across in front of you. if i was sitting a distance back from a 'normal' car, i could see what oncoming cars were doing easily without having to position myself wide out on the road; and they could see me too. when it was a tall vehicle in front of me, i was in danger of not being seen by the oncoming motorist, who could (and did, in several circumstances) swing across the lane just after that car in front passed them.

i.e. with a normal car, i was able to see them easily, they were able to see me. with an SUV in front of me, i had to strive to see and to be seen. the bonnet height was immaterial.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

who said anything about the driver? you could try reading my previous post on it. it's only four posts above the one you quoted.

Classic driver centric thinking on display

Edgarfrndly

I always try to be conscious of cyclists when driving as I cycle myself, but the amount of people I've seen push into the cycle lanes without even looking is astounding.

Weepsie

Only good things about these SUV type cars from a cycling perspective is when they pull in on top of you to take a phone call or whatever, you're crashing into something solid rather than going through the windscreen of some of the smaller cars.

Speaking from experience there.

They generally also have much bigger blind spots as they have bigger pillars so to speak (probably a better term). So for all you gain in straight on visibility you lose some more important visibility I think

statto25

Deleted User wrote: »

Ford Ranger's the same

The new automobile of the agriw@nker and the wannabe agriw@nker

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

They generally also have much bigger blind spots as they have bigger pillars so to speak (probably a better term).

yeah, the closest i ever came to knocking a cyclist down was when i was pulling up at a roundabout and whatever the combination of my speed and the cyclist's speed, he was hidden behind my A pillar till the very last second. i managed to scare the daylights out of the poor guy.

machiavellianme

magicbastarder wrote: »

the current qashqai has a stated height of 1,635mm.
the average height of an irish woman is 1,650mm. so the average irish woman cannot see over a qashqai.

at a guess, you'd probably need to be at least 100mm taller than the car to see over it. so for that qashqai, 1,735mm tall, or about 5'8" tall.

(and rather coincidentally, i think i'm 172mm tall. maybe tall people don't realise the issue SUVs can create)

Can you see over trucks, vans, caravans, buses or tractors?
Assuming you haven't been killed by one of them or whatever traffic is behind it, why is it such a problem for SUVs?
I would have thought that it's pretty simple - look where you are going and if you aren't sure, don't do it!

Weepsie

machiavellianme wrote: »

Can you see over trucks, vans, caravans, buses or tractors?
Assuming you haven't been killed by one of them or whatever traffic is behind it, why is it such a problem for SUVs?
I would have thought that it's pretty simple - look where you are going and if you aren't sure, don't do it!

It'd the increasing volume of them. They're becoming the norm everywhere and parked everywhere.

Sure there are lots of vans, busses etc, but they're not the majority of traffic

Hurrache

seamus wrote: »

When you consider the position that drivers sit in, it's possible that an adult might not be visible in front of this vehicle, never mind a child.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Classic driver centric thinking on display

It's the post above yours which sent the discussion a particular way.

magicbastarder

machiavellianme wrote: »

Can you see over trucks, vans, caravans, buses or tractors?

because, as alluded to by others above above, private cars form the vast majority of the motorised vehicles i would encounter on the bike, be it commuting at rush hour, or out on country roads.
plus, a truck needs to be the size it is typically. someone driving a car taller than i am does not necessarily *need* a car taller than i am.
check out the volvo S90 estate vs the volvo XC90, which is a container ship of a car. the only thing for most people in the difference is the height - but you see many more XC90s than you'd see of S90s.

if it goes from 10% of vehicles being 'tall' to 40% of vehicles being tall, then of course it has a bearing on safety.

machiavellianme wrote: »

I would have thought that it's pretty simple - look where you are going and if you aren't sure, don't do it!

that's a bit trite, to be fair? in other words, with increasing numbers of cars like this on the road, it's up to me to have to change my behaviour to cope with the increasing danger. (which i have had to do anyway)

what would you say to a novice cyclist in the context i mentioned, newtownpark avenue - which i picked because it is one of those places where i'd have had more near misses than most other places? given the affluent location, it's possible that there are more SUVs on the road there than elsewhere.

the novice cyclist can't cycle on the footpath (in the sense that they shouldn't) but there are at least two schools on the road. the road - IMHO - is now more dangerous due to the increasing number of SUVs on it.

Paddigol

I may be biased, but the majority of my run ins on the bike have been with traditional styled cars - your Golfs, Audi A4s, Mercs, Civics etc. I would say (with absolutely zero factual basis!) that 80% of issues are down to the driver, not the car. I'm sure detailed research and stats can show that in testing SUVs cause greater injury in the event of collisions, and yes, that's something that needs to be looked at in terms of design specifications/ restrictions etc. But I'd have that way down the list of things that need to be fixed to make the roads safer and more enjoyable for cyclists.

Macy0161

Paddigol wrote: »

I'm an SUV driver -AND- an anti-hiviz, anti-cycle lane cyclist... can you imagine how defensive I am everyday :pac::pac:

SUV was too small for me - I drive a combi van. When I was commuting to the office, I part drove with the bike in the back!

magicbastarder

Paddigol wrote: »

I may be biased, but the majority of my run ins on the bike have been with traditional styled cars - your Golfs, Audi A4s, Mercs, Civics etc. I would say (with absolutely zero factual basis!) that 80% of issues are down to the driver, not the car.

oh, agreed - but that's a different issue, i'd argue. bad driving is bad driving, but the visibility issue is still an issue when the driver is doing a good job.

Bass Reeves

I think the hi-vis question is very fair. Yesterday evening would have being dark from 7pm on with the cloud cover. I had a similar experience mid summer a few years ago. I was driving through a junction a bike came from my left with no light on or visibility vest. Except that I had stopped the yield sign I would have hit him. Standard saloons give you less visibility than an SUV.

Very few bikes have lights nowadays. From now on sunset will reduce by 10 minutes a week. It's a fair questions to ask had someone out cycling a high vis top on. It would be fair to ask if they had a light on there bike as well.

Watching car drivers most are putting light on from 7-8 pm on over the last week.

km991148

Paddigol wrote: »

I may be biased, but the majority of my run ins on the bike have been with traditional styled cars - your Golfs, Audi A4s, Mercs, Civics etc. I would say (with absolutely zero factual basis!) that 80% of issues are down to the driver, not the car. I'm sure detailed research and stats can show that in testing SUVs cause greater injury in the event of collisions, and yes, that's something that needs to be looked at in terms of design specifications/ restrictions etc. But I'd have that way down the list of things that need to be fixed to make the roads safer and more enjoyable for cyclists.

yeah tbh - I don't notice one particular vehicle operator over another causing fewer or more incidents.

You either have road users who pay attention to the environment or you have ones that dont.

Saloon car drivers/hatchback drivers/cyclists/SUV Drivers/Van drivers/bus drivers/Peds etc

The only generalisation I can make is it seems those who use more than one type of vehicle seem to do better (but I too am biased).

Pawwed Rig

Best wishes to Ciaran. Hopefully will be back on his feet soon